City ponders fluoride

'West Sac to ponder water fluoridation'

By Steve Marschke

News-Ledger Editor

West Sacramento will soon weigh the pros and cons of adding fluoride to the city’s water supply.

Mayor pro tem Carolyn Castillo Pierson has asked her colleagues on the city council to hear a presentation on fluoride at tonight’s council meeting. Pierson’s “day job” is with the state’s department of health.

“I also sit as a member of the Salud Clinic Advisory Board,” she told the News-Ledger. “We were approached by Dr. Betty Hinton, who is the county health director, and Dr. (Richard) Kennedy, a dentist. The Salud Clinic Advisory Committee then took it on to do some education and some feeling-out of what the community’s thoughts were about fluoridating the water.”

After some public meetings were held, said Pierson, she is now an advocate of adding fluoride to city water. Backers say it helps produce strong, cavity-resistant tooth enamel, which is a boon to both the young and the old.

“I really believe that fluoridation is hugely beneficial,” said Pierson. “It’s supported by all the medical and dental associations, and all the reports document it as safe and cost-effective.”

A report from the city water department said that not many other cities or counties in the region fluoridate their water (Pierson said that Sacramento County is now tackling the project).

West Sacramento would handle the fluoridation at its treatment plant on Bryte Bend, under the I-80 freeway bridge, where Sacramento River water gets turned into drinking water. If the plan is approved, workers would add enough hydrofluoric acid to the treated water to register about one part per million of fluoride.

About 27 percent of the state’s treated water is fluoridated, says the report, and about 66 percent of the nation’s is fluoridated.

Retrofitting the Bryte Bend plant to handle fluoridation would cost about $800,000, said the city report, and keeping up the program would cost about $20,000 per year. Private grant money could help pay for the up-front costs of a fluoridation program, said Pierson.

The city report said that dental benefits from fluoridation are not entirely clear, but that the industry does agree that fluoridation produces “operational and regulatory challenges.”

“Some communities continue to witness tooth decay averages above the state level with fluoride addition, while others see dramatic decreases,” said the report from city water superintendent Dan Mount.

Is Pierson expecting controversy when the council tackles the issue?

“I don’t know,” she answered. “I’m aware that in other communities, when the issue of fluoridation comes up, there have been groups that have formed in opposition to it. I think you’re going to hear a lot of facts on Wednesday regarding the dental health of children in Yolo County – it’s quite startling,” she said.

Information provided by the Yolo County Health Department to West Sacramento says that 423 West Sacramento children were recently screened for dental problems. Over 30 percent needed “some kind” of dental care, and 12 percent (52 kids) needed urgent dental care. 15 of the kids were “in pain.”

The city staff report says that some cities in California – including Davis – have “rejected, banned or quit fluoridating over the last 15 years.”

Some critics have called fluoride an industrial waste byproduct, according to the information from Yolo County. But it is instead a natural “trace element” liberated from mining. And as a natural trace element, argues the county, it’s not a “medicine.”

7/26/06 website update: After the discussion on July 19, the city council asked that an “impartial speaker” moderate the discussion of water fluoridation at the workshop planned for Wednesday, August 2. The discussion will be part of the council meeting beginning at 7 p.m. and held at city hall, 1110 West Capitol Avenue.